Oral donor site evaluation in the early and late postoperative periods for augmentation and replacement urethroplasty

Introduction. The use of oral mucosa in augmentation and replacement urethroplasty is the gold standard for several reasons. Most commonly, the mucous membrane of the cheek, the underside of the tongue or lip is employed. Assessing postoperative complications in the donor area is crucial as it impacts patients' quality of life.

Objective. To evaluate early and late postoperative changes in the donor area after oral graft extraction for urethroplasty

Materials & methods. A retrospective analysis of the results of surgical treatment using oral mucosa from 2017 to 2022 was carried out. The study included 65 patients. The intensity of pain syndrome in the graft sampling area was assessed by patients on a visual analog scale (VAS). The donor area was sutured only in the case of tongue and lip mucosa sampling.

Results. The mucous membrane of the oral cavity was harvested from different sites in 65 patients. Specifically, it was taken from the inside of the cheek in 49 patients (75.38%), from both inner sides of the cheeks in 13 (20.0%), the lower lip in two (3.07%) and the lower surface of the tongue in one (1.54%) patient, respectively. On the first day after surgery, the median pain level according to VAS was 4 points (range: 2 – 7), at the time of discharge — 3 points (1 – 6). After 120 days, a follow-up examination showed a regression of pain symptoms: the median was 0 points (0–1). In the late postoperative period, incomplete opening of the mouth was recorded in two patients (3.07%), cosmetic defect in the donor area in two (3.07%), discomfort during meals in six (9.23%), impaired sensitivity in the donor area in two (3.07%), exacerbation of chronic stomatitis and hypersalivation in two (3.07%) patients, respectively.

Conclusion. The incidence of complications in the donor area is low, but for some patients this can result in a reduced quality of life. Using proper technique when extracting oral mucosa grafts reduces pain and the likelihood of early- and late-stage postoperative complications in this area.

1. Korneyev I, Ilyin D, Schultheiss D, Chapple C. The first oral mucosal graft urethroplasty was carried out in the 19th century: the pioneering experience of Kirill Sapezhko (1857-1928). Eur Urol. 2012;62(4):624-627. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.035

2. Kotov S.V., Belomitsev S.V., Guspanov R.I., Iritsyan M.M., Surenkov D.N., Semenov M.K., Ugurchiev A.M. Surgical technique and the first clinical experience of augmentation urethroplasty without dividing of corpus spongiosum (KODAMA technique). Urologiia. 2018;(5):39-45. (In Russian). DOI: 10.18565/urology.2018.5.39-44

3. Kotov S.V., Guspanov R.I., Yusufov A.G., Semenov M.K., Abdulkhalygov E.Kh., Iritsyan M.M., Survillo I.I. Urethral Strictures after Transurethral Surgery: Treatment and Histological Issues. CreatiVe surgery and oncology. 2020;10(1):10-15. (In Russian). DOI: 10.24060/2076-3093-2020-10-1-10-15

4. Gulani A, Yadav SS, Tomar V, Priyadarshi S, Singh VK. The effect of closure versus nonclosure of lingual mucosa graft harvest site on postoperative morbidity in augmentation urethroplasty: A comparative study. Urol Ann. 2019;11(3):265-269. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_142_17

5. BhalaguruIyyan A, Murugan PP, Alakhananda CC, Hameed BMZ. Evaluation of the Extent of Primary Buccal Mucosal Graft Contracture in Augmentation Urethroplasty for Stricture Urethra: A Prospective Observational Study at a Tertiary Healthcare Centre. AdV Urol. 2021;2021:9913452. DOI: 10.1155/2021/9913452

6. Patel K, Kalathia J, Krishnamoorthy V. Objective assessment of mouth opening after buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty: A prospective study. Urol Ann. 2020;12(3):259-265. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_84_19

7. Soave A, Dahlem R, Pinnschmidt HO, Rink M, Langetepe J, Engel O, Kluth LA, Loechelt B, Reiss P, Ahyai SA, Fisch M. Substitution Urethroplasty with Closure Versus Nonclosure of the Buccal Mucosa Graft Harvest Site: A Randomized Controlled Trial with a Detailed Analysis of Oral Pain and Morbidity. Eur Urol. 2018;73(6):910-922. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.014

8. Barbagli G, Bandini M, Balò S, Montorsi F, Sansalone S, Dominicis M, Butnaru D, Lazzeri M. Patient-reported outcomes for typical single cheek harvesting vs atypical lingual, labial or bilateral cheeks harvesting: a single-center analysis of more than 800 patients. World J Urol. 2021;39(6):2089-2097. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03400-y

9. Güler Y. Comparison of closure versus non-closure of the intraoral buccal mucosa graft site in urethroplasties. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol. 2022;21(1):18-30. DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2022.2097613

10. Dublin N, Stewart LH. Oral complications after buccal mucosal graft harvest for urethroplasty. BJU Int. 2004;94(6):867-869. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05048.x

11. Kamp S, Knoll T, Osman M, Häcker A, Michel MS, Alken P. Donor-site morbidity in buccal mucosa urethroplasty: lower lip or inner cheek? BJU Int. 2005;96(4):619-623. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05695.x

12. 12/ Xu YM, Xu QK, Fu Q, Sa YL, Zhang J, Song LJ, Hu XY, Li C. Oral complications after lingual mucosal graft harvesting for urethroplasty in 110 cases. BJU Int. 2011;108(1):140-145. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09852.x

13. Jamal JE, Kellner DS, Fracchia JA, Armenakas NA. A randomized prospective trial of primary versus AlloDerm closure of buccal mucosal graft harvest site for substitution urethroplasty. Urology. 2010;75(3):695-700. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.07.1226